G25 g25 VS qpadm/admixtools2 comparison.

[PaleoRevenge]

Glad you caught your error. Overall similar issues to earlier. You can get it to work for one pop but it will fail for other related pops.
With the current setup I got it to to pass with East Balkan source in a neat model, but a friend wants it posted on his blog, so decided not to share. The setup holds well for the populations I have in my dataset, from Bulgarians, to Croatians and Romanians.

Here is a pass.

Medieval and Hellenestic Armenians are almost just as good as a proxy. It is known the Byzantines settled Armenians in Bulgaria as recruiting muscle.

Even a four way model comes pretty close.

This mdv Bulgarian should not be modeled as mdv Albania and pure Slavic, because it has a clear east Asian drift. For a model to come close to passing means the tail is not right.

Steppe tribes that moved into the Pannonian basin then later into Bulgaria can be hard to model. They had resettled Byzantine civilians of different stock in Hungary, including Germanic and Slavic tribesmen.

From southern Arc

Bulgaria looked like this most of the 800s up to 897 AD

And this fellow has a strong east Asian mixture, haplogroup Q, this implies his father could have been a nomad whose war bands roamed Hungary/northern Serbia.

Bulgaria during his lifetime.

right = c('Cameroon_SMA', 'Czech_Vestonice16', 'Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1', 'Russia_West_Siberia_HG', 'Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic', 'Karitiana.DG', 'Papuan.DG', 'Iran_GanjDareh_N', 'Russia_Boisman_MN', 'Romania_C_Bodrogkeresztur', 'Croatia_MLBA', 'Netherlands_EIA', 'Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya', 'Czech_CordedWare', 'Lithuania_EMN_Narva', 'Turkey_Arslantepe_LateC', 'Israel_C', 'Iraq_PPNA', 'ONG.SG')

Removed Cyprus_C and Turkey_Epipaleolithic since they added no value.

 

[Archetype0ne]

The interesting question is why Bulgarian Medieval East Asian does not seem to be modeled by Bulgaria_IA. Did the Bulgaria_IA autosomal shift to a West Balkan one sometime during LA or EMA?

Either way, it seems whatever these early Avars were, for Balkan nations, they work as the great stabilizer in models:
Here is modern Bulgarians, with an East Balkan base component.

The EarlyAvar samples I split in groups per the clines reported in their paper supplement.

What I learned past few weeks is historical knowledge plays a big part in asking the right questions.
Hopefully some of the other models will be published soon.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Like

The interesting question is why Bulgarian Medieval East Asian does not seem to be modeled by Bulgaria_IA. Did the Bulgaria_IA autosomal shift to a West Balkan one sometime during LA or EMA?

Either way, it seems whatever these early Avars were, for Balkan nations, they work as the great stabilizer in models:
Here is modern Bulgarians, with an East Balkan base component.

The EarlyAvar samples I split in groups per the clines reported in their paper supplement.

What I learned past few weeks is historical knowledge plays a big part in asking the right questions.
Hopefully some of the other models will be published soon.

During the 800s they had just move to Bulgaria, at least this individual likely came from a clan that was expelled by the Maygars when they wrested control of Hungary. Basically this particular Turkic clan had not mixed with the locals yet, and is a mixture with the locals from Pannonia not Bulgaria. His profile would eventually shift to your model after generations of mixing in Bulgaria.

 

[Jovialis]

The world needs to know

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743537060600832341

 

[Jovialis]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743646887259877489

 

[mount123]

View attachment 14925

1)Here I just dropped the Netherlands_MBA_IA and Iberia_IA since for Balkan pops they are irrelevant historically but also add nothing to the tail, if anything they made the analysis worse.

2)I changed the CroatiaMLBA_SloveniaIA (aggregate constructed by the authors, God knows by what logic, but they even came up with worse~ CroatiaSerbia_RomanAnatolian, LOL) cause it represents a ghost population, an aggregate of different profiles that neither lived at the same time neither share a profile, instead added whatever was left of Croatia_Cetina.

3)I added Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya and Suddan Early Christian (part of the pre print 2 years ago), because it dramatically improved the tail (Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya less so, but still substantial).

That concludes the "general", all purpose tail. The final change is per the practices recommended by the Patterson paper on qpADM on how to construct a tail for a given experiment.

4)Thus, I added Czech_IA_Hallstatt and Czech_Early Slav as the population variably related to the Avar_Slavic component of the test compared to the Albanian Medieval component. And Albania_BA_IA and Bulgaria_IA as the population variably related to Albanian Medieval compared to the Avar_Slavic component of the test.

Compare:


right = c("OldAfrica", "Steppe_BA", "EHG", "Iron_Gates_HG", "Anatolia_N", "Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya", "Sudan_EarlyChristian", "Kazakhstan_EarlySarmatian","Czech_EarlySlav_660-770",
"Iran_N", "Greece_Minoan","Croatia_MBA_Cetina", "Czech_IA_Hallstatt", "Bulgaria_IA","Albania_BA_IA",
"Steppe_IA","SoutheastTurkey_MLBA", "Baltic_BA")

Do you have an update on the historians' opinions you mentioned having contacted earlier? Have read your posts again, thanks for giving us an insight into the poor "methodology" and lack of any imaginable reasoning used by the people in Belgrade. Very mortyfing that the delay of the article seems to have revolved around abusing the scientific method by propagating a failing auDNA model for especially Albanians.

I have seen the political sentiments of these authors on their platforms and above all they seem to celebrate it in far right anti-western Serbian newspapers as a "gotcha" Albanians are nearly half Anatolian and 30% Slavic weird kind of "victory". Their interviews literally read as "Albanians claim to be Paleo-Balkan but we have shown that they carry more Imperial Anatolian and Slavic ancestry", literally said by one of the key figures of the paper Mr. Miodrag.

Out of curiosity, do you guys or any of your perhaps friends in the genetics field plan to comment on the article or call them out in a way? Would be much appreciated.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Do you have an update on the historians' opinions you mentioned having contacted earlier? Have read your posts again, thanks for giving us an insight into the poor "methodology" and lack of any imaginable reasoning used by the people in Belgrade. Very mortyfing that the delay of the article seems to have revolved around abusing the scientific method by propagating a failing auDNA model for especially Albanians.

I have seen the political sentiments of these authors on their platforms and above all they seem to celebrate it in far right anti-western Serbian newspapers as a "gotcha" Albanians are nearly half Anatolian and 30% Slavic weird kind of "victory". Their interviews literally read as "Albanians claim to be Paleo-Balkan but we have shown that they carry more Imperial Anatolian and Slavic ancestry", literally said by one of the key figures of the paper Mr. Miodrag.

Out of curiosity, do you guys or any of your perhaps friends in the genetics field plan to comment on the article or call them out in a way? Would be much appreciated.

Their model for Albanians does not even pass, so kinda sus if they are posting it on social media. But not to worry, not even Serbs believe Serbian media.

But arguing on social media over this stuff is like wrestling pigs in the mud. No amount of evidence has any sway on how conversations go, its too primal.

 

[Jovialis]

Their model for Albanians does not even pass, so kinda sus if they are posting it on social media. But not to worry, not even Serbs believe Serbian media.

But arguing on social media over this stuff is like wrestling pigs in the mud. No amount of evidence has any sway on how conversations go, its too primal.

I get the same impermeable willful ignorance arguing with "Nordicist" Northern Italians on Twitter, that insist they're 35-40% Steppe, with no CHG/IN; and that Southerners have an exorbitant non-existent amount of Levantine; just because they put together a lackluster G25 model sophistry, in total contravention of formal stats from academic studies.

 

[mount123]

Their model for Albanians does not even pass, so kinda sus if they are posting it on social media. But not to worry, not even Serbs believe Serbian media.

But arguing on social media over this stuff is like wrestling pigs in the mud. No amount of evidence has any sway on how conversations go, its too primal.

They actually collectively do. But that is not my concern. It's mostly that it is being used by outsiders too as a "serious" source because "hey it's an article that got through".

I actually had something similar to bioRxiv in mind and if I'm not wrong they have a comments section. Not sure if that's the case for this science journal (think it was Cell or some similar name). Just some factual feedback or any sort of reaction would have been really appreciated. Unfortunatley that hasn't been the case for this really bad output from that place.

 

[Archetype0ne]

They actually collectively do. But that is not my concern. It's mostly that it is being used by outsiders too as a "serious" source because "hey it's an article that got through".

I actually had something similar to bioRxiv in mind and if I'm not wrong they have a comments section. Not sure if that's the case for this science journal (think it was Cell or some similar name). Just some factual feedback or any sort of reaction would have been really appreciated. Unfortunatley that hasn't been the case for this really bad output from that place.

Just counter with Lazaridis paper statements on Albanians and the wacky standard errors of the Roman Frontier model not meeting the Patterson qpadm paper criteria.

Assessing the performance of qpAdm: a statistical tool for studying population admixture

Abstract. qpAdm is a statistical tool for studying the ancestry of populations with histories that involve admixture between two or more source populations

academic.oup.com

At this point the issue is the big names such as Lazaridis tagging along papers like this that go against their own major publications, for God knows why.

But yeah, short of moderation in such fora (hard to do for such topics), you just have to wait for the scientific process to set things straight, and grow a thick skin. Cause as you know, where those statements come from has nothing to do with reason, and all to do with hateful agendas dating back one and a half centuries.